New Yorker : Marine Massacre Should Lead to More Gun Control

I want to like the The New Yorker magazine. OK, sure, they fired Dan Baum. I have a real soft spot for the once and future Fudd, a TTAG contributor whose Gun Guys remains the seminal examination of modern American gun culture. Aside from ditching the Danster, the New Yorker still has some superb writers in their stable. Unfortunately, if you look past the elegant prose, the New Yorker is frequently revealed as a gussied-up purveyor of inelegantly-argued, ill-informed, left-leaning statist tripe. John Cassidy’s piece Lax Gun Laws Are Becoming a National-Security Issue is a perfect case in point . . .

According to news reports, Abdulazeez, a twenty-four-year-old Kuwaiti-born U.S. citizen, was armed with at least three guns, including an AK-47 assault rifle. How he got hold of these weapons wasn’t what concerned Trump, however. “Get rid of gun free zones,” he tweeted on Friday morning. “The four great marines who were just shot never had a chance. They were highly trained but helpless without guns.”

Trump was evidently referring to a Pentagon regulation, dating back to 1993, that prohibits some members of the military from carrying firearms while on base. His comments echoed those of gun enthusiasts, who highlighted, on social media, a picture of a sign prohibiting firearms that was on the door of the Chattanooga military-recruitment office where Abdulazeez reportedly opened fire before moving onto the Naval Reserve center, less than ten miles away.

For once, Trump has raised an important issue. In an era when attacks inspired by radical Islamism are becoming increasingly common, are gun laws magnifying the problem of domestic terrorism?

As I’ve noted before, anti-gunners are really good at stating the pro-gun position. (We thank them for their service.) Cassidy’s opening reminds me of that old English expression “when you’re in a hole stop digging.” If he’d just filled out the above prose with some relevant information and stopped there . . .

As usual, however, Trump has things backward. The issue isn’t gun-free zones; it is free-for-all gun zones, which decades of lax firearms laws have produced all over the country. In an America held hostage by the gun lobby, radicalized lone-wolf terrorists can get their hands on deadly weapons and mountains of ammunition just as easily as disturbed post-adolescentsdelusional military subcontractorsvirulent racists, and anybody else.

Oh dear. How much more backwards can you get on the gun control issue than to argue that Donald Tump’s call to arm American soldiers in the U.S. gets things backwards – in light of the murder of now five unarmed U.S. Marines? Cassidy can’t seriously believe that it would be more effective to pass gun control laws that would [theoretically] deny potential terrorists weapons than it is to allow, maybe even encourage potential victims to arm themselves against actual terrorists?

Yes. Yes he does. Complete with the usual anti-gun hate and hyperbole (i.e., a glib reference to the “gun lobby” and a nonsensical notion of “mountains of ammunition”). Cassidy’s “we need gun control to protect us against terrorists” logic is so obviously illogical and impractical it’s borderline incoherent – despite The New Yorker editors’ best efforts. No wonder, then, that the writer’s tome is prone to proactive prevarication.

Trump ignores all of this, of course, and he couldn’t even get the details straight about those “gun-free zones.” He ignored the fact that the military police who enforce the laws on military installations are routinely armed, as are other soldiers engaged in security roles, such as guard duty. Moreover, the four marines were killed not at the recruitment center, where the sign prohibiting firearms was located, but at the Naval Reserve center. It was there, too, that Abdulazeez was reportedly shot dead by police, who had pursued him from the recruitment office. Sadly, neither the military guards nor the police managed to stop Abdulazeez before he had killed four people. But to claim that these victims would be alive if they had been armed is pure speculation.

See what I mean? Cassidy labels the idea that armed Marines – Marines – could have stopped the killing in Chattanooga as “speculation.” Compared to what? The “certainty” that gun control laws would have prevented “known wolf” terrorist Muhammod Youssuf Abdulazeez from obtaining weapons to kill Marines?

Trump and the N.R.A, would counter guns with more guns. They would further encourage the proliferation of hidden-carry laws, which enable people to carry concealed weapons, and place heavily armed guards anywhere a potential terrorist could strike—at government buildings, sports grounds, schools, theatres, transport hubs, malls, even churches. Over time, such a strategy would turn the United States into an even more militarized place than it already is. Whether it would prevent more terrorist attacks is a lot less clear.

“Hidden carry laws”? Who uses that term? Someone British-born, perhaps, with no personal experience of firearms or knowledge of the fight for (and against) gun rights in the Land of the Free. The same sort of imported ivory tower ignoramus who feels free to reject “hidden carry” as a preventative measure against terrorism – utterly blind to the fact that Americans want guns to counter terrorist attacks. You know; stop them. 

Cassidy is a lazy writer, an affliction which often leads to outright lying. I don’t remember Trump or the NRA calling for armed guards everywhere. Schools, yes. Of course. Why the hell not? I don’t know if Cassidy has school-age children and if so, what sort of educational institution they attend. But arguing that we shouldn’t protect our children against terrorism with armed guards shows just how far removed he is from mainstream American experience and values. Happily and by choice, no doubt.

The other option is the one that anti-gun activists, police chiefs, and sensible politicians have been promoting for decades: reform guns laws to keep deadly weapons, particularly rapid-fire guns, out of the hands of disturbed individuals and people of ill intent. Such a policy agenda wouldn’t stamp out domestically grown jihadism either. But it would surely make things more difficult for would-be attackers.

So Cassidy would have us enact laws that make it harder (but not impossible) for domestically grown jihadis to obtain “rapid-fire guns” (again, who says that?) that also make it harder for Americans to defend themselves against these domestically grown jihadis by force of arms…and then what? Hope for the best? The New Yorker may employ some of this country’s best writers but not its best thinkers.

comments

  1. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    oy vey……..you can’t fix stupid.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Mark Twain quote, paraphrased, dont argue with stupid, they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience

      1. avatar OakRiver says:

        I also like; “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
        – George Bernard Shaw

    2. avatar DMB says:

      Yes you can fix stupid Pantera. Every county of every state in the US has an SPCA that has a “FREE or LOW COST” spay and neuter program. Someone needs to take him to the local facility.

  2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    I’m not away that, prior to the attack, Abdulazeez had ever been identified with any legal or mental health issues that would have prevented him from getting a gun under anything but a near total ban on gun ownership.

    If those marines had been armed, they would have had a fighting chance.

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      ‘…under anything but a near total ban on gun ownership.’

      That’s exactly the kind of ‘gun control’ Mr. Cassidy wants.

      1. avatar pyratemime says:

        Close, Mr. Cassidy wants a total ban not a near total ban.

        1. avatar J-El says:

          …like in France, where the Charlie Hebdo attackers were unable to get weapons because they were banned?

          Wait. Oh. Hmm.

        2. avatar Chrispy says:

          ^ But that’s totally different because they attacked a newspaper, not a marine recruiting center…

          (I’m just trying to apply the liberal logic to this, but I can’t finish the thought with any form of intelligence.)

    2. avatar B says:

      What I found most shocking was his assertion that pro gun rights people saying 4 armed Marines could stop 1 terrorist was an idea not even meriting consideration. These were freaking Marines. I think 3 of them had been on multiple tours, 1 was fresh from boot. That dismissal right there tells me everything I need to know about him.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Above and beyond that, the author derided Trump and the N.R.A for their “more guns” solution … which happens to be exactly what the police do I might add.

        So how is it okay for police to have “more guns” to stop violent attackers but it isn’t okay for active-duty service men and women to have “more guns”?????

        This article illustrates the utterly twisted mindset of gun grabbers. As I have stated before, they have no actual position based on coherent thought. They only have a passion to eliminate firearms. And they are willing to throw anyone and everyone under the bus — even active duty military personnel — to achieve their objective. They simply vomit words and phrases desperately hoping that something strikes a chord with the listener who will then join their side based on an emotional connection.

        No wonder gun grabbers are beginning to lose the long game.

        1. avatar Cincinnatus says:

          The Marines are part of our “Armed Forces”. I’m not really sure why we call them that.

      2. avatar Evan in Dallas says:

        It’s always going to be a roll of the dice, but I like the 4 to 1(I think that’s right) odds. Gun control might make it a smidgen less convenient for a would be terrorist to get a gun(worked great for Charlie hebdo), but the writer, as many leftist writers do, assumes that because he is more “right thinking” than those “crazy gun owning people” his speculation about policy is more valid.

    3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      Abdulazeez had ever been identified with any legal or mental health issues that would have prevented him from getting a gun .
      He was a prohibited person for working at a nuclear power plant, but that does not mean he was prohibited from buying guns.

    4. avatar doesky2 says:

      Abdulazeez had ever been identified with any legal or mental health issues that would have prevented him from getting a gun….

      Well he did have that mental condition of actively worshiping a raping, murdering, psychotic pedophile.

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        It is the Religion of Peace. It is all the Confederacy’s fault.

        1. avatar TSgt B says:

          More accurately, “Religion of Pieces”. Allahu AchBOOM!

  3. They always want laws that make it harder for the “wrong” people to get guns, but never can explain how these magic karma detectors would work. Then they skip to making it hard or impossible for anyone, while ignoring that availability of illegal weapons will go on forever. They refuse to accept the reality of bad guys with weapons. Like little children, they refuse to accept reality. I say pull down their pants and stripe the backs of their legs.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      That’s a great comment. Hit the nail right on the head.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      “. . . making it hard or impossible for anyone . . . ”

      Actually, the problem is more sinister than that. The gun grabbers will announce publicly that they acknowledge the 2A. They don’t propose to make it possible for a person with 2A rights to buy a gun. Instead, what they want are “common sense” solutions to make as many people as possible designated as “prohibited-persons”. Then, they can neither buy nor possess guns.

      For the declining residual, they want to make it as tedious and awkward as possible for us to keep or bear arms. Taxes, waiting periods, forms, training, doctor’s certificates, banning gun ranges, etc.

      The big threat is a national registry. The 20-year retention period for 4473 forms is a proto-national-registry. All they need to close-the-loop is to introduce 4473 forms to non-dealer sales under the guise of UBC. How could we possibly complain that a little paperwork “infringes” on our rights to keep or bear arms?

      And, of course, GFZ. If we can keep a gun at home and bear them at ranges and hunting grounds, how could we possibly complain that they are infringing on our rights to bare arms?

  4. avatar Ross says:

    In this case Islam is the problem and will continue to be the problem until we come to terms with the fact that we are at war.

    1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

      This is a domestic violence issue and it has been established that Islam and ISIS played no role in his motivation. It was the Confederate bumper sticker on his rented Mustang Convertible that drove this sweet young boy to violence.

      1. avatar Ross says:

        Sorry Tom my bad.

    2. avatar Newwave says:

      ^^^^^Right on!!!
      They (the Islamists) have been at war with us since at least the late 1970’s. There are countless examples of the adherents and followers of the ‘religion of peace’ attacking and killing westerners and anyone else they deem to be not quite radical enough. I first started paying attention when the Marine barracks was attacked in Lebanon. After that it was one example after another.

      The fact that we as a country and society don’t call it what it is and react to it correctly does not change the fact they are at war with us and we pretty much do nothing at all.

      It is plain to see that most of them (Islamists) would kill each and every one of us if they had the chance. Their religion seems to require the killing of all non believers. So do we sit and wait to be killed like sheep?

      Or is there another way this can go?

    3. avatar american says:

      BS. ISIS is killing more muslims than anyone else right now. And muslims are dying alongside american citizens to fight against them as well. Some of our service members are muslims by the way. You sound just as ignorant of islam as ISIS is ….

      1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

        The Sunni Muslims kill the Shiite Muslims and vice versa. The Muslims wish to live in the 7th century and they soon will get their wish. Of course this is all Jefferson Davis’s fault.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          ISIS is killing plenty of Sunni Muslims (most Kurds are Sunni Muslims, for example).

      2. avatar Newwave says:

        I never claimed to be the smartest guy in the room. I have however been paying attention to all the atrocities over the years.

        Also I thought it would be clear without me saying that I wasn’t referring to every single Muslim in every part of the world.

        I won’t trade insults with you but I know what I’ve seen and read about these murderous heathens. 9-11 was not that long ago for me.

  5. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

    The New Yorker? I only read their cartoons.

    1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Elaine: “The pig says my wife is a slut?!”

      Kramer: *smiles

      Jerry: “Now that’s a complaint.”

  6. avatar Al Swymer says:

    Because it worked so well in France…. or not.

  7. avatar Joseph says:

    In the last 4 years I’ve noticed that the people who abdicate to remove or ban firearms know little to nothing about guns, how they work, or how they are used. They don’t understand the truth behind when seconds count the police are minutes away plus the time it takes them to gear up, set up a command and control, and finally gather enough force to feel confident in being able to counter the threat. Which can take from 15 minutes to an hour… They point fingers and suggest actions that are insane: (insane: doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result). I commend their enthusiasm but believe if they first gained some knowledge into what they are talking about first. Go to some firearm training courses, take basic firearms training, then take some tactical training, and finish with marksmanship training. Then I would give them more of a chance when they talk. After they know what it take just for the police or military to deal with an enemy aggressor then he might understand why having trained citizens with firearm on hand is more beneficial then adding to the already 20K gun laws on the books. It’s always those who are afraid who speak out against firearms and they are scared because they don’t know much of anything about gun other then what they see in the movies, which I might point out are FAKE and are about as far away from the realities of dealing with a bad guy with a firearm. But what do I know I’m just a pro 2A gun wielding yahoo that spent 14 years in the Navy with some really good training that I am proud of…

    1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      I totally agree with your assessment about their ignorance about guns, however the political class is just as ignorant about just about everything else. Do you really think they have a better understanding of the economy than guns? Do you think they had any real understanding of the health care industry? They took away my health insurance and now I pay a fine because I won’t pay 6 times what I was paying for insurance that has a max out of pocket 2.7 times higher. These people are morons, only worse, they’re morons who think they’re smart and that you need them to run your life.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        Damn, another nail driven in at one blow. Morons are one thing, but morons with the conceit that they are smart enough to run your life for you, and the power to indulge that conceit, are something else altogether.

    2. avatar Braenen says:

      The fundamental issue driving gun control is the Dunning-Kruger effect. They know nothing about the topic but feel that they are experts. They counter experts with “common sense” statements that are utterly ignorant and illogical. I actually managed to convert one of my anti-gun friends to gun ownership by spending the time to talk with him about basic security and the right to self defense. The discussions eventually came to the gun issue and with the proper ground work, he saw the logic of using them. It can be done and if we want to keep our rights and our guns, we must do this.

      For those who are interested, please read about the Dunning-Kruger effect here:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        ‘The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras’

        Now that’s funny. Ranks right up their with the ‘shoulder thing that goes up.’

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.”

        AKA, “secondary ignorance” . . .

        “This is a Static Condition caused when an individual not only doesn’t understand something, but also he doesn’t know that he doesn’t know it. People inflicted with Secondary Ignorance simply don’t realize that they’re lacking adequate information or insight. They are unable to be metacognitive. These people don’t know that they don’t know.”

        http://raider.mountunion.edu/~schnelpl/ed%20150w%20lit%20website/PrimarySecondary%20Ignorance.pdf

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          From an old Persian proverb: He who knows not, but knows that he knows not, is a child: teach him. He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool: shun him.

      3. avatar MarkPA says:

        Thanks for the link. A worthwhile read.

    3. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Learning ways of the gun does not offer insight to commentary, it’s just a fun day at the range. A gun is a tool, no more or less. The qualifier is a core value, a belief that one’s life is worth preserving against an attack. An anti-gun writers logic does not embrace a core value …individuals right to choose lawful self protection.

  8. avatar Robert C. Hall says:

    Your technique of weaving responses through excerpts from Cassidy’s dopey article is very effective. Thanks for taking the time to pick yet another “lazy writer” apart. I never get tired of watching such one-sided combat at TTAG. Closet sadist maybe.

    I disagree with the assertion in your final sentence. I don’t think you can be a great writer without being a great thinker. There are a few topics about which a few New Yorker writers do some great thinking. So, some great writing can come from that.

    But most New Yorker writers are too closed-minded [bigoted] to think above a nursery-school level about any topic that concerns POTG. Hence, their reliably crappy writing.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Agreed. Many NYC denizens suffer from a severe over-estimation of their own city and its importance. Not from NYC, you say? Well, why would you know anything about anything? Carry guns, you say? Well I live in a rather important city, sir, and I don’t carry a gun. And since I know more than you, because I live in such an amazing city, than you don’t need to carry a gun either. I’m just too sophisticated to carry a gun, and I will pour derision on anyone with the courage and wisdom to carry a gun for self defense. They’re just a bunch of ammosexuals and bigots, after all.

      Granted, that’s not always the attitude of NYC. It is however, a common theme throughout major metropolitan areas.

      1. avatar juliesa says:

        Yes, and then it turns out that a lot of them are actually LESS knowledgable about things because they live in that Manhattan bubble. No offense to the sensible ones who live there, but that area in general tends to be the most provincial area in the US.

      2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        “It is however, a common theme throughout major metropolitan areas.”

        I call them “cosmopolites”. There are some social indicators about these people’s lifestyles make them culturally isolated from those of us out here in flyover country. There are multi-generational families who’ve never owned cars, don’t know how to drive, and who’ve lived their entire lives in apartments located in densely populated mega-cities like NYC. They have no tools in their households because, never having learned to fix things, they lack even the most basic mechanical skills. They live in a cultural bubble.

        Their taken-for-granted world is a place very different from the rest of us. Not surprisingly, they regard People Of The Gun as alien barbarians. Theirs’ has always seemed to me to be a narrow and sterile environment that is, in many ways, deforming of the human spirit.

  9. avatar Carsonthebrain64 says:

    I keep hearing anti gun commentators mention Miltary Police over changing the policies to allow soldiers to be armed. In my experience of a decade plus in the reserves, we only dealt with MPs on bases. They were not present and armed at reserve centers, recruiting sites, and administration buildings. These sites are generally without weapons or have a small armory with unit issue weapons locked away and no ammo on site.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Bingo. Note that this was written by someone who likely considered himself very sophisticated. Before the article even began, he had an insurmountable anti-gun paradigm. Then, those pesky pro-gunners started stating – obviously – that Marines ought to be armed. Since that is clearly wrong – since guns are bad – this chap did some “research” about guns on bases.

      It’s evident to me that he has zero practical experience in the matter. My reserve centers and recruiting centers had zero guns and zero MPs. Not sure if that was the case in Chattanooga, but it certainly appears to be. Nothing in this case so far supports an intelligent anti-gun narrative.

      1. avatar peirsonb says:

        “an intelligent anti-gun narrative.”

        Not sure I’ve ever heard one of those….

    2. avatar Bob H says:

      I heard a radio blurb from one of the female multi ethnic lawyers who represents the pentagon these days say.. ” Some of these recruitment centers are in and near residential areas, so obviously arming the personnel on site is NOT an option.. We are however looking into other ways to increase security”. That line literally made me spit Pepsi all over the steering wheel.
      Understand “occupying force” terminology and what not but is a military officer with a side arm on military property really a threat to our liberty?
      I bet most average Americans would trust our military men and women with a side arm in public more than a police officer these days. That’s not my personal opinion but it wouldn’t surprise me.

      1. avatar JSF001 says:

        I had a similar reaction from reading comments yesterday by Kelli Bland, the public affairs chief for the U.S. Army Recruiting Command Center.

        “Recruiting centers don’t allow weapons because they need to be “welcoming,” Bland said. “They are in public spaces. Applicants need to feel comfortable,” she said. “They’re not there to get a rehearsal to join the Army.””

        Seriously? If a potential applicant is made that uncomfortable by the idea of Military personal carrying a firearm around them, then its an extremely good indicator that they are not Army (or any other branch of service for that mater) Material. In my opinion it would be worth arming recruiters for the sole purpose weeding out those types of people, being able to defend themselves would be just a nice side benefit.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        Strangely enough, commuters in/out of NYC have to face armed military in their train stations. Why does anyone clutch their pearls imagining a soldier with a gun after seeing a half-dozen soldiers with carbines and handguns while they are shuffling off to get on their train?

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Maybe because none of the Soldiers were issued bullets and everyone understood it was just a placebo?

    3. avatar Mudpuppy says:

      Ive been out for a while, pre-9/11. MPs were at the time issued a pistol with a single magazine, 15 rounds. Chambering around was forbidden unless in a deadly-force situation. These rules may have changed in the past 15 or so years, but I doubt it. Perhaps a more current MP Vet could chime in.

  10. avatar Mk10108 says:

    My generation defines itself by what we do, now replacements how they feel. It’s as though just thinking can will an outcome without engaging in required heavy lift. What and the why is responsible for the shift, escapes me. In the lawful self protection discourse, feeling is no substitute for doing. One cannot feel a way out of an attack only do something. Either retreat, which is what our governments want us to do, or fight…which may end the attack or if successful, ends suffering. It’s the individual right to make the choice.

  11. avatar Drew says:

    If Cassidy does not like guns, he is free to not own any. He is also free to urinate while sitting down.

    1. avatar Other Tony says:

      Ohh, SNAP!

  12. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    ‘…such a strategy would turn the United States into an even more militarized place than it already is.’

    I do not think this word means what you think it means. An armed citizenry is not synonymous to a militarized society. A militarized society is one in which the government exerts total control over it’s subjects by using it’s military for civilian enforcement of the state’s will. An armed citizenry is quite the opposite.

    1. avatar crndl says:

      +1, sir…there’s today’s winner 🙂

  13. avatar brentondadams says:

    DB got axed huh? Poor guy.. Not really welcome in leftist land, not really welcome in gun nut central.

    Well in (culture) war, we all have to pick sides.

    1. avatar brentondadams says:

      I just bought his book for a penny on amazon. Hardback. 100% off…

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I just bought his book for a penny on amazon. Hardback. 100% off…”

        Free shipping?

        If that’s the case, buy every one in stock for fireplace food when winter hits.

        That would be so sweet, being kept actually warm on a cold winter’s night by the written words of a fvckwit anti-gunner.

  14. avatar Anonymous says:

    Marine Massacre Should Lead to More Gun Control

    Well, slander and libel laws when weren’t followed by a select few should have led to background checks and registration for everyone in the US that uses pencils and those who print signage. We need to keep pencils out of the hands of dangerous libelers.

  15. avatar david says:

    Compare the number of shootings on military bases and schools, where potential victims are disarmed, to the number of shootings at police stations, where they’re not.

  16. avatar Toasty says:

    They say “rapid fire” so that they can include pump and lever action guns as well. Ask Australia, they know what’s coming next. Hell, Australia already lost pump actions in 96′. They’re going for levers now. Then it’ll be straight pull bolts (The .004 seconds it takes to shift the bolt up will save on average 750 babies per second from gun violence dontchaknow?) Eventually all that will be left will be breech loading rifles that require a combination to unlock each time. Then they’ll ban them too. The ride never ends.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I can see the endgame here in the USA.

      The right to keep and bear arms means a citizen may posses a single shot bolt-action .22lr and your arsenal can have a maximum of 10 rounds of ammunition.

      Subject to random inspection at any time.

      That is, unless you have ever been convicted of any criminal act ever.

  17. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    So another well connected white man says take all the guns away except for mine.

  18. avatar JD says:

    Every antigunner talks about banning guns like it would be as simple as writing a law. Considering that 90-95% of the people who owned scary black guns in CT and NY refused to register them, why do they think the 100+ million gun owners would just line up and turn them in? Its not going to happen, ever. Guns are here to stay in this country and no amount of hand wringing is going to change that. Sure some people would turn in what they have but the vast majority wouldn’t. Then what? Door to door search and seizure? The takers would all be dead in a matter of days if not hours if just 1% of the gun owners decided to fight back. American gun owners are by far the largest armed group in the world. Our country was created because King George tried to disarm us and that didn’t go the way the government in charge thought it would. It wouldn’t go the way the far left antigun crowd thinks it would today either.

  19. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Hmmm…guns make no difference? Tell that to the reserve deputy in Texas who killed 2 aloha snackbars who would be murdering folks if he hadn’t killed ’em. I see millions of folks finally waking up that the gubmint ain’t gonna’ do shite for you. And I’m fine with this doofus being unarmed…

  20. avatar General Zod says:

    You know, the only way to prevent theft is obviously to ban locks…

    1. avatar Mk10108 says:

      Anti-lock movement to stop thieves…good statement for the anti-gun crowd.

  21. avatar ThomasR says:

    Ah yes. Because the writer could never imagine using a firearm to defend himself or anyone else, no one else could either; except, obviously, for the designated agents of the state.

  22. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I was anticipating the libtard masses to begin caterwauling for more gun control the moment I heard the news. Not disappointed at all. Never let a crisis go to waste.

  23. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    What is the definition of a rapid fire gun? All of my guns except for my two Mosins, and 03A3 fire as fast as I pull the trigger. This includes my Ruger GP100 which I bet he thinks is probably ok because it’s a revolver with a 6″ barrel. I do have evil speed loaders for it.

  24. avatar gsnyder says:

    RANT

    So John’s point on the military personnel is they should not be given the opportunity to protect themselves? Who can say what any outcome may be. But really John, it’s best to not give people even a chance? Whew man, for you I serve up the middle finger salute, you are a bona fide idiot with zero intelligent rationale and a clear lack of compassion and opportunity for preservation of life.

    BTW Cassidy, I’m sick of the current media trend for vilification of the AK-47. No need to explain further here on TTAG. You’re speaking out of your butthole. How is it your paycheck is justifiable?

    The New Yorker should not allow such ignorant articles to go to print, shame on the editor. “Lax”? How so? An AK “assault rifle”? Really, a full auto military issue model 47? I doubt this, unless it was illegally modified. “hidden” carry”? Yes, too funny.

    Once again we see illogical arguments against firearms with a complete bypass of an intelligent look into causation with an intelligent observation of the human element.

    I use the term too often but Cassidy earns the Captain Asshat award.

  25. avatar Bobiojimbo says:

    Sounds similar to the terminology that gun control activists use in Australia and Britain.

  26. avatar Ralph says:

    The more I read leftist tripe like the New Yorker screed, the more I have come to realize that the left does not hate guns. They have a morbid fear of guns to be sure, but what they really hate is us. And this hatred is so visceral and so hot that it eventually burns away any cognitive abilities that they once had.

  27. avatar The Cat Has Left The Bag says:

    The REAL security threat, in Obamas own words…. ” We will speed up training of ISIL forces ” from July 8 presser. See clip on youtube or jihad watch.
    The Best Enemy Money Can Buy.

  28. avatar J says:

    “reform guns laws to keep deadly weapons, particularly rapid-fire guns, out of the hands of disturbed individuals and people of ill intent” – naive and easier said than done. How do current laws facilitate access to guns for those intent on doing evil?

  29. avatar crndl says:

    The article is full of what my grammar Nazi 8th grade English teacher called “glittering generalities”

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Sparkling Magic Unicorn Dust must be made of “glittering generalities”…

  30. avatar Bob says:

    So armed citizens (employed as police) stopped him but somehow armed citizens (employed as soldiers) wouldn’t have? Seriously?

    so the crux of his “argument” is that if there were more gun control this wouldn’t have occurred. So Which specific peice of gun control would have stopped him? Not might, not could, which…exact…one.

    And if you had that what would have stopped him from finding alternative means? Maybe he should focus on the real problem that allows a person’s morals to end up so far out of wack that they would choose this kind of behavior?

  31. avatar GayGunOwner says:

    Cassidy presents readers with a classic false dilemma argument. He’s a skilled writer. Disappointing that he resorts to a well worn propaganda technique.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      That ‘well worn propaganda technique’ is a key part of the “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” propaganda technique.

      Well known to all the goose-stepping fascists.

  32. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

    Who reads the New Yorker anyway? I could care less what is written in the New Yorker. John Cassidy is writing for a like minded audience. We cannot change the thought process of people who think America is crafted at high society dinner parties. They call 911 and the threat is hauled away. If they are scared they hire a security company. They cannot dirty their hands with their own security.

    Most TAG readers are cut from a different cloth. They don’t like the idea of a stranger in the house when their kids are asleep, even a security guard.

  33. avatar Ing says:

    Would our awesome new gun laws be even more restrictive than those in France or Australia or Tunisia? Because they already have the type of law the New Yorker wants, yet somehow terrorists, lunatics, and garden-variety criminals still keep showing up with guns — all of them illegal for citizens to own — and killing a lot of innocent people.

  34. avatar MarkPA says:

    I think we PotG need to sharpen our rhetoric to reach our audience.

    The Antis scream: ‘We need more gun control!’

    What the Antis mean by that is that they want more laws that will control the SUPPLY of guns flowing from sources (manufacturers and importers) to the mass of consumers (law abiding gun-users and – if at all possible – a few criminals and crazies).

    We PotG scream: ‘Gun control! GUN Control!! We don need no STINKING Gun control!’

    What is the open-minded voter to think? Bear in mind, the open-minded voter doesn’t really want to think much about guns at all. They don’t interest him. He is interested in earning a living and – just maybe – improving safety in his community. Our (PotG) message that is a blanket repudiation against gun control in any form doesn’t resonate with him.

    What we OUGHT to do is to make a clear-cut distinction between gun-controls directed at the:
    – Supply side; vs.
    – Demand side.

    Look at any historical attempt at controlling ANYTHING by trying to strangle the supply. Prohibition of Alcohol didn’t work in the 1920s. Limiting tobacco sales to 18 year-olds hasn’t worked well. Prohibition of drugs has never worked throughout the 20th century and it isn’t working now in the 21st century. Control of guns sold to native Americans didn’t work well and controlling guns sold to consumers since 1968 hasn’t worked well.

    Just like alcohol, tobacco and drugs, attempts to control the SUPPLY flow is mostly an effort in futility. To believe in supply-side gun-control you have to figure out why guns are different from drugs, tobacco or alcohol. The fact is, the is no meaningful difference. Guns will leak from the legitimate market just as do alcohol, tobacco and drugs. Guns will be manufactured in clandestine cottages just as alcohol is bootlegged. Guns will be smuggled just like Indian reservation cigarets are smuggled.

    If you really do want to control guns, why waste society’s resources in a futile exercise.

    Control guns from the DEMAND side. Make the criminal or crazy pay a HIGHER PRICE for getting caught in possession of a gun (felon-in-posession). Make the criminal pay a higher price for committing a crime with a gun. This can and DOES work.

    Our criminal justice system doesn’t want to make DEMAND side gun control work. To do so means to STOP plea-bargaining armed-robbery or felon-in-posession cases. To do so means sending felons-in-posession to prison for long sentences actually served. American society needs to make-up-its-collective-mind as to whether it wants criminals with guns walking the streets or in prison. It’s as simple as that.

    As to terrorists; nothing we could imagine doing on either the supply or demand side is going to change terrorism. We have 14 years of experience with terrorism in the Middle East and have not put a dent in the supply of AK-47s to Islamic Jihad. We aren’t going to have any greater much on US soil. AK-47s will be imported through our ports boarder with Mexico or easily manufactured in clandestine factories here in the US.

    The ugly truth of the matter is that if we can’t find and arrest the jihadi terrorists we can’t disarm them either.

    The handwriting is on the wall. It’s much easier for the Islamic Jihad to attack us then it is to prevent the attacks. The only apparent effective solution is to be prepared to shoot-back and minimize casualties. The President is prepared with the Secret Service. Congress is prepared with the Capital Police (3 police officers per member-of-Congress). We the People are not prepared. Even our soldiers on base are not prepared as Ft. Hood and Chattanooga clearly demonstrate.

    Friends and neighbors, figure it out for yourself. Do you want gun-control according to the supply-side method that has proven to be a failure at every test? Or, do you want gun-control of criminals on the demand-side? Do you want to meet the terrorists un-prepared, or prepared?

  35. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    If a seaman has time and composure enough to text “ACTIVE SHOOTER” to his girlfriend, prior to being gunned down by said active shooter, then he surely would have had time and composure enough to defend himself with a self defense firearm were one available.

    The likelihood of him being able not only to defend himself under such circumstances, but to thwart further attacks, is far greater than mere speculation. It’s entirely plausible and even probable.

  36. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Charlie Hebdo. Now go f*** yourself, New Yorker.

  37. avatar Phil LA says:

    I propose that we un-invent everything that is dangerous: gun powder, petroleum, alcohol, sharp things, foul language, Islam, etc.

    Also Pez. For the children. Yay democracy!

  38. avatar lowell says:

    In France jihadists shot a dozen people with no resistance over some stupid drawings. I Texas jihadists were gunned down before they could hurt anybody over some stupid drawings. And then they held another contest specifically to give the jihadists another chance if another group thought that they could do any better. Bottom line, if you’d shoot someone over a dumb drawing, the world is better off if you leave it.

    And fyi New Yorker, if you hadn’t championed taking away people’s guns in New York, you’d have the same level of protection as the Texas contest. But you instead chose the same amount of protection that got your fellows massacred overseas. Best of luck with that.

  39. avatar JSJ says:

    Maybe the “no guns” sign wasn’t big enough. Yeah, that has to be the problem.

  40. avatar Larry in NJ says:

    Who cares what the New Yorker says. It’s just another one of the many media outlets owned by the billionaire Newhouse brothers to promote their anti-gun agenda.

  41. avatar Doug says:

    The writers (both of them) missed the most obvious point of all. It took someone (a good guy) with a gun to end the carnage. The irony of this is epic!

  42. avatar Uncle Lar says:

    Arming our military is a crazy idea. There would be accidents. Gunfights would break out over minor disagreements. All so a soldier might maybe be able to defend himself against an attacker. How foolish.
    Next thing you know they’ll want to allow some if not all of our 700,000 law enforcement officers to carry guns while on duty. Think of the carnage, the bloodbaths.
    Oh, wait, all those cops already carry weapons don’t they. And accidents do happen, and the public is OK with that because the benefit of armed law enforcement vastly outweighs the potential for harm.
    Forgive the sarcasm, but if we keep our military disarmed then how can we not expect the same of our police? Which may just be what the lefties want anyway.

  43. avatar Rich says:

    This murderer was a jihadis….READ THE QURAN

  44. avatar TSgt B says:

    “rapid fire guns”? Obviously this clown has never seen what Jerry Miculek can do with a 6 shot revolver and 12 rounds of ammo in about 2.9 SECONDS.

  45. avatar Yellow Devil says:

    I thought the narrative for the Statist left was that the only people allowed to have firearms on them was supposed to be uniformed personnel.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email